Appling v. The City of New York

Background

This civil-rights action was brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs alleged that New York City police officers stopped them without justification and used excessive force. J.M. reported three encounters:

- On May 30, 2024, officers stopped J.M. while he was walking with a friend, placed him in handcuffs behind his back, and released him after realizing the encounter was being recorded. - On June 1, 2024, an unmarked police car returned after passing J.M. while he was walking with his mother. An officer told J.M. to stop and asked him questions, but the officers eventually drove away. J.M. said he felt fearful. - On July 4, 2024, J.M. ran from a police car because he feared another encounter. Officers chased and caught him, dragged him from a fence, handcuffed him, and took him to a precinct for several hours. He was released without charges. His mother then took him to an emergency room, where doctors documented multiple abrasions.

The parties reached a settlement at a settlement conference. Because J.M. is a minor, the plaintiffs moved for approval of an infant compromise, meaning a court-approved settlement of a minor’s claim. The parties consented to Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker’s jurisdiction for this motion.

Court’s standards

The Southern District of New York’s Local Rule 83.2(a)(1) requires court approval before an action brought by or for a minor is settled. The court considered New York procedures requiring information about the minor, the representative, the injuries, the settlement terms, related claims, and the attorney’s work and recommendation. Medical and hospital reports are also required in personal-injury settlements.

The court’s substantive review asked whether the settlement protected J.M.’s best interests and whether the settlement, including fees and expenses, was fair and reasonable. The court compared the compromise with the likely results of continued litigation, considering such matters as the litigation’s risks, expense, duration, and potential recovery. The court also reviewed whether the requested attorney fee was reasonable based on the work performed and prevailing rates.

Discussion

The court found that the procedural requirements had been met. J.M.’s mother submitted a sworn declaration describing her relationship to J.M. and the events underlying the claims. She also stated that she had filed a complaint with the Civilian Complaint Review Board for each incident, worked with counsel on a notice of claim and the federal complaint, and attended the settlement conference with J.M.

The settlement required the defendants to pay $92,500 in total. One-third of that amount, stated in the opinion as $30,833, was designated for attorneys’ fees. The opinion states that the fee amount was recommended by the mediator after extensive, arm’s-length negotiations. J.M.’s mother intended to place the settlement proceeds in a trust account for J.M.’s health, education, maintenance, and support. Plaintiffs’ counsel also submitted a declaration describing the work performed and the basis for recommending the settlement.

Because Judge Parker had facilitated the settlement conference, met with the parties, and assessed the injuries and the parties’ settlement positions, the court found good cause to conclude that the purpose of a hearing had been satisfied. No additional hearing was required before approval.

The court applied the presumption that a settlement negotiated by a minor’s natural guardian is fair and in the child’s best interests. It found no evidence rebutting that presumption and concluded that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate when compared with the likely rewards and risks of litigation. The court also found that the plaintiffs had shown that the requested attorney fees were reasonable.

Disposition

The court granted the motion for approval of an infant compromise and approved the settlement. It also approved the requested attorneys’ fees as reasonable. The opinion did not decide whether the alleged police conduct violated federal law; it addressed the settlement approval and related fee review.